@Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobell are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO they have obviously talked about it because they had to. Whether this is 'promoting' it I don't know because I haven't read Kate`s book.

But it still remains that they had Exton efits for 5 years and did not publish them - none of us knew what 'Smithman' was supposed to look like until 14th October 2013.

So they had to acknowledge that there was a Smithman but feared the world knowing what he looked like.

What I find unusual is that it's said that the McCanns passed the Exton efits to Leicester police and the PJ - so why didn't they flag them up to the public?

Taking the two comments I've bolded together, Woofer, suppose just for a moment that I am right - that these efits were not produced by the Smiths.

I think the McCanns may know that.

No doubt Leicestershire Police and the PJ between them (assuming they really were shown these efits) did not find them credible enough to tell the public about in 2009 (or subsequently).

Then why, if the McCanns met Redwood in August 2011, and showed him the efits then (as the Sunday Times admits), and told him that the Smiths drew them up, why, why, why did he not show these efits to the British public in August 2011, instead of waiting until October 2013? It is on the face of it a gross dereliction of duty.

It is my sincere belief that DCI Redwood knows that these efits were not drawn up by the Smiths. However, I believe that he wanted to use them - dishonestly - but could not do so until he had 'got rid of' Tannerman.

In which case Redwood has made a bold, maybe 'clever' move (at least in his own eyes), but one that is dishonest - and may one day be found out.

____________________

"Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 - "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"

@Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobell are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO they have obviously talked about it because they had to. Whether this is 'promoting' it I don't know because I haven't read Kate`s book.

But it still remains that they had Exton efits for 5 years and did not publish them - none of us knew what 'Smithman' was supposed to look like until 14th October 2013.

So they had to acknowledge that there was a Smithman but feared the world knowing what he looked like.

What I find unusual is that it's said that the McCanns passed the Exton efits to Leicester police and the PJ - so why didn't they flag them up to the public?

Taking the two comments I've bolded together, Woofer, suppose just for a moment that I am right - that these efits were not produced by the Smiths.

I think the McCanns may know that.

No doubt Leicestershire Police and the PJ between them (assuming they really were shown these efits) did not find them credible enough to tell the public about in 2009 (or subsequently).

Then why, if the McCanns met Redwood in August 2011, and showed him the efits then (as the Sunday Times admits), and told him that the Smiths drew them up, why, why, why did he not show these efits to the British public in August 2011, instead of waiting until October 2013? It is on the face of it a gross dereliction of duty.

It is my sincere belief that DCI Redwood knows that these efits were not drawn up by the Smiths. However, I believe that he wanted to use them - dishonestly - but could not do so until he had 'got rid of' Tannerman.

In which case Redwood has made a bold, maybe 'clever' move (at least in his own eyes), but one that is dishonest - and may one day be found out.

OK -so lets say Exton drew up the efits but we don`t know his source.

The PJ, Leicester Police and SY did not think they were credible. The McCanns did not want the world to see them either, so you could say the McCanns were in agreement with the PJ and Leicester Police.

However SY have now decided they are credible (now that Tannerman has been eliminated).

@Cristobell wrote:Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify. DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment. Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book. Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before.

The McCanns must have been aware that Smithman was of interest to Amaral and the PJ. Even if they didn't like Amaral, the search for their daughter has to take priority over their feelings towards him. If Smithman was not GM then I would expect the McCanns to give maximum publicity to someone the police considered to be very important.

@Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobell are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO they have obviously talked about it because they had to. Whether this is 'promoting' it I don't know because I haven't read Kate`s book.

But it still remains that they had Exton efits for 5 years and did not publish them - none of us knew what 'Smithman' was supposed to look like until 14th October 2013.

So they had to acknowledge that there was a Smithman but feared the world knowing what he looked like.

What I find unusual is that it's said that the McCanns passed the Exton efits to Leicester police and the PJ - so why didn't they flag them up to the public?

Taking the two comments I've bolded together, Woofer, suppose just for a moment that I am right - that these efits were not produced by the Smiths.

I think the McCanns may know that.

No doubt Leicestershire Police and the PJ between them (assuming they really were shown these efits) did not find them credible enough to tell the public about in 2009 (or subsequently).

Then why, if the McCanns met Redwood in August 2011, and showed him the efits then (as the Sunday Times admits), and told him that the Smiths drew them up, why, why, why did he not show these efits to the British public in August 2011, instead of waiting until October 2013? It is on the face of it a gross dereliction of duty.

It is my sincere belief that DCI Redwood knows that these efits were not drawn up by the Smiths. However, I believe that he wanted to use them - dishonestly - but could not do so until he had 'got rid of' Tannerman.

In which case Redwood has made a bold, maybe 'clever' move (at least in his own eyes), but one that is dishonest - and may one day be found out.

I believe this was because OG wasn't ready to 'out' TM at that point.

If they ARE efits of GM produced by the Smiths and kept hidden, then redwood wouldn't to need release the efits to find out who it was, he would already know that.. He would be releasing them to prepare the public, along with hints about death and unreliable alibis.

I'm not sure if this is the right wording but they must have some sort of responsibility to TM personal safety, if the contents of the files was common knowledge and the public all thought the same as we generally do, I can't imagine TM would be able to go about their daily business without harassment. Similarly, I think DP was specifically not named in the crimewatch episode as they didn't want everyone going off Googling that name as we all know what results would be thrown up and again, not only for his safety but they would be highly criticised for leaving the twins in situ if the Gaspar statements were common knowledge.

So, whitewash or not, everything coming from OG is orchestrated IMO and the efit appeal was not because they wanted to know who it was - they were released at that specific time for a good reason.

I think because from the third of May 07 the whole world has been told maddie was abducted and there's no evidence she's come to serious harm (except the dogs findings) and she's a findable little girl, plus money for the fund IMO though.

@Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobel are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO the McCanns have obviously talked about it because they had to. Whether this is `promoting` it I don`t know because I haven`t read Kate`s book.

But it still remains that they had Exton efits for 5 years and did not publish them - none of us knew what `Smithman` was supposed to look like until 14th October 2013.

So they had to acknowledge that there was a Smithman but feared the world knowing what he looked like.

What I find unusual is that it`s said that the McCanns passed the Exton efits to Leicester police and the PJ - so why didn`t they flag them up to the public?

Woofer, are you referring to the McCanns or LEICS police and the PJ here?

If the latter, I'm not aware of any occasion where they have promoted anything the couple have presented to them. On the other hand, the couple have been quite active in outing "persons of interest" to their investigation and thus sending the media on a merry trip for suspects who looked like the e-fits depicting the so-called persons of interest. This is why I agree with Cristobell's stance that the couple didn't promote the Smith sighting especially when you compare it with how they went all out for Tannerman and the Barcelona "Posh Spice".

I think because from the third of May 07 the whole world has been told maddie was abducted and there's no evidence she's come to serious harm (except the dogs findings) and she's a findable little girl, plus money for the fund IMO though.

I agree with your comment.

The UK government intervened from the very beginning and have given the McCanns a "stay of execution" for over 7 years, hence their "Fund" being topped up to the tune of £millions by pensioners, school children, people attending fun runs to put £s into the McCanns "Fund"; the McCanns being paid £££££ to sit on sofas and being fawned over by the likes of LK et al, the McCanns being able to sue anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their "abduction" story, the tales go on and on and on.....

If the PJ were left to do their job as they were doing well in May 2007 without interference, no doubt the McCanns would be behind bars now and serving a long sentence. The UK government have a lot of explaining to do to the UK population when their "idols - the poor McCanns who have been so poorly treated by the PJ and the anti-McCann websites" are charged with .......................

But the Barcelona 'Posh Spice' served a valuable purpose for a little while.

Meanwhile the possibly-fabricated Smithman 'sighting' was intorudced in early 2009, and kept nice, and warm, and waiting in the background, and growing - until the moment that Redwood, his masters and the BBC Crimewatch Team had everything in place for the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Edited to add:

Found in another place, normally hostile to this forum:

QUOTE

The hounders are now up to their TENTH page of 'speculation'. Bennett's right for once; why idiots keep insisting the McCanns didn't publicize the 'Smith sighting' is a mystery to me. They did, repeatedly, and it's a matter of record.

UNQUOTE

____________________

"Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 - "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"

But the Barcelona 'Posh Spice' served a valuable purpose for a little while.

Meanwhile the possibly-fabricated Smithman 'sighting' was intorudced in early 2009, and kept nice, and warm, and waiting in the background, and growing - until the moment that Redwood, his masters and the BBC Crimewatch Team had everything in place for the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Tony, why do you think the Smithsman sighting didn't get the mock police press conference treatment?

ETA: I've just seen your update Tony.

With such people believing in you for once, I'm even more certain in my stance that Smithsman wasn't actively promoted.

@Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobel are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO the McCanns have obviously talked about it because they had to. Whether this is `promoting` it I don`t know because I haven`t read Kate`s book.

But it still remains that they had Exton efits for 5 years and did not publish them - none of us knew what `Smithman` was supposed to look like until 14th October 2013.

So they had to acknowledge that there was a Smithman but feared the world knowing what he looked like.

What I find unusual is that it`s said that the McCanns passed the Exton efits to Leicester police and the PJ - so why didn`t they flag them up to the public?

Woofer, are you referring to the McCanns or LEICS police and the PJ here?

If the latter, I'm not aware of any occasion where they have promoted anything the couple have presented to them. On the other hand, the couple have been quite active in outing "persons of interest" to their investigation and thus sending the media on a merry trip for suspects who looked like the e-fits depicting the so-called persons of interest. This is why I agree with Cristobell's stance that the couple didn't promote the Smith sighting especially when you compare it with how they went all out for Tannerman and the Barcelona "Posh Spice".

Hi ShuBob - sorry for not being clear - I meant the two police organisations. You`re right Leicester Police haven`t promoted anything from the McCanns but you`d have thought they would have passed whatever they had to DCI Redwood when SY undertook the review. You`ve made me think - out of all the efits the public have been given sight of over the years - where have they all stemmed from?Yes, I tend to agree, that although the McCanns have mentioned Smithman, I think it`s because they HAD to but he hasn`t had the vigorous promotion that their other favourites have.

But the Barcelona 'Posh Spice' served a valuable purpose for a little while.

Meanwhile the possibly-fabricated Smithman 'sighting' was intorudced in early 2009, and kept nice, and warm, and waiting in the background, and growing - until the moment that Redwood, his masters and the BBC Crimewatch Team had everything in place for the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Tony, why do you think the Smithsman sighting didn't get the mock police press conference treatment?

ETA: I've just seen your update Tony.

With such people believing in you for once, I'm even more certain in my stance that Smithsman wasn't actively promoted.

Indeed. I cannot believe that Crimewatch/BBC as well as SY/government would all conspire together to create all this. Why would the BBC involve themselves in an obvious whitewash? And surely all this detailed work by AR/Crimewatch would have to have someone tried and convicted for it to be worthwhile and for Crimewatch to show on the How They Were Caught special.

Do we know for sure that the information mentioned in the Sunday Times apology is indeed correct i.e. that the couple handed the Smithsman e-fits to LEICS police etc? Did the newspaper independently verify that the information is correct?

Do we know for sure that the information mentioned in the Sunday Times apology is indeed correct i.e. that the couple handed the Smithsman e-fits to LEICS police etc? Did the newspaper independently verify that the information is correct?

Not necessarily - its just said "we also understand" which IMO just means they were instructed to write it.

Here is the apology courtesy of Canada12 :-

"Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, December 29, 2013 Publisher Notice: Please note: the sentence commencing "We also understand..." should read as follows "We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review".

In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to E-Fits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the E-Fits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the E-Fits was passed to the police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused "